Pierre van Rooden wrote: > >I have no real opinion about it. My unreal opinion is: no. Log4j has > >proven itself well, and I see no need changing it. Besides the depenency > >on the external jar I don't see many flaws. > > Then what is the moptivation to want another logging implementation > (using java logging)? > Diversification is ok but I don't think it should be a goal on its own.
The logging implementation of mmbase is plugable, so you need some plugs, to specify in log.xml/class. There are several available already, but this one was obviously missing. Being a java 1.4 product, I think one would expect it to be able to log to java.util.logging, and this one small little class would make that possible. I don't see why we would not offer it, even if we would not make it default. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
